Can theists be rational?

[Belz...]

And why shouldn't the laws of physics be consistent across the entire simulation?

That's actually my argument, westprog. That they should. Ergo, if they're not, something's wrong.

And why should anyone spot this inconsistency as being evidence of the universe being simulated.

It's one possible explanation.

Example - the law of gravity has been found to apply to the surface of the earth and to the motion of the planets. However, when applied on a cosmic scale, there doesn't appear to be enough matter around. Do scientists immediately say "Aha! The giveaway - it's a big fake!" No, they fill in the gaps in the equation with "dark matter".

And when they actually FIND evidence of dark matter it means that there is no inconsistency to start with.

If there are any other valid arguments you'd like to rule out, then please do so. The immutability and reliability of memory, the irreversability of time - these are assumptions that are necessary to make science work, but it would be highly unwise to assume that they reflect some pure "truth".

I'm sorry, how does this relate to our conversation ? And who argued for immutability of memory ?

All that's necessary is some local and temporary consistency.

Yeah, like, say, the universe. The temporary consistency, westprog, is what we call physical laws. You're still trying to have it both ways.

In my world, I use different words to denote different things. Do you want to restrict my vocabulary as well as the arguments I use?

I'd like to make sure that there aren't misinterpretations, yes. That's one of the things that make rational debates possible.

When you claim that the universe is not a simulation then you are making assertions about the fundamental nature of the universe.

I'm not saying the universe is not a simulation. I'm saying it's highly improbable based on what we know -- which is the only thing we can base anything on.

When you say that a simulation would have to be computational in nature, and that it would have bugs, then you are describing how a hypothetical simulation would function. For you then to insist that I shouldn't refer to both sides of your argument - which I don't accept - seems to be taking the restrictions to an absurd level.

Huh ? You've lost me, here.

 

[Belz...]

It may well be our only hope - and it's certainly been a useful tool. But a means to ultimate truth? It may turn out not to be enough.

What's this "ultimate truth" you speak of ?

 

[L The Detective]

There might be no difference at all. There might be a huge difference.

If death is just a matter of waking up in a little cocoon and emerging into a different world, that would make a big difference.

Sure, but that hasn't happened yet. My question is, what's the meaningful distinction *until* that happens? How do you believe possiblities like that should effect your life?

If this is all a computer simulation that is in-distinguishable from reality, then to my way of thinking, it's functionally the same as reality. At least from my point of view. Once we reach the point where it becomes distinguishable from reality, in other words once Morpheus appears with the blue pill, then at that point I think there is a meaningful difference. But until that happens, we simply have no way of knowing if he will show up.

Rather than specifically prepare ourselves for Morpheus, I would think the best strategy for living is to just tentatively accept reality at face value, while at the same time being prepared to make paradigm-shifts when necessary. But that's just my personal opinion. What's yours?

Whether or not one would live one's life any differently with the mere possibility that this world is a simulation of some kind is a matter for each person to decide for himself. Much as with the other views of how the universe might work.

Sure. There are many factors that determine how a person lives their life. It think that this is one particular idea that most people are able to get over, even if they are troubled by it, because as you say, we ultimately have to just continue living our lives, right? (Well, I suppose you could commit suicide... but i wouldn't recommend that.)

 

[westprog]

That's actually my argument, westprog. That they should. Ergo, if they're not, something's wrong.

That's right. But in a good simulation, they won't be wrong. Hence there will be no way to tell the difference.

It's one possible explanation.

Yes, I know. I'm the one promoting the possibility of multiple explanations. You are the one denying it.

And when they actually FIND evidence of dark matter it means that there is no inconsistency to start with.

The use of the word "when" shows exactly why the simulation would not be detected. The rational thinker would assume a rational explanation that had not yet been found.

I'm sorry, how does this relate to our conversation ? And who argued for immutability of memory ?

I didn't bring it up.

Yeah, like, say, the universe. The temporary consistency, westprog, is what we call physical laws. You're still trying to have it both ways.

The principle of physical law is that it is neither temporary or subjective.

I'd like to make sure that there aren't misinterpretations, yes. That's one of the things that make rational debates possible.


I'm not saying the universe is not a simulation. I'm saying it's highly improbable based on what we know -- which is the only thing we can base anything on.

I know you're saying it's improbable, but I've yet to see why it's improbable. I already made a case that it's far more probable that we're living in a simulation than not, given a few materialistic assumptions.

Huh ? You've lost me, here.

You insisted that a simulation would be some form of computation. You said it would have bugs. When I refer to the bugs, I'm referring to your argument, not my concept of the simulation, such as it is.

 

[yy2bggggs]

It may well be our only hope - and it's certainly been a useful tool. But a means to ultimate truth? It may turn out not to be enough.

Which isn't relevant.

There's no need to sell doubt. Everyone already has the product. What you need to sell is belief.

 

[Belz...]

That's right. But in a good simulation, they won't be wrong. Hence there will be no way to tell the difference.

What you are describing is not a good simulation but a perfect one. I have to assume that any such device would be less than perfect.

Yes, I know. I'm the one promoting the possibility of multiple explanations. You are the one denying it.

No, I am not. I am saying that this particular explanation is highly improbable.

The use of the word "when" shows exactly why the simulation would not be detected. The rational thinker would assume a rational explanation that had not yet been found.

So would the irrational one. The difference is that new evidence will vindicate the rational thinker.

The principle of physical law is that it is neither temporary or subjective.

That's where you're wrong. If the universe is, again, a false vacuum, then its physical laws and constants could very well end with it. In fact, the multiverse scenario explores this. I thought you knew.

You insisted that a simulation would be some form of computation. You said it would have bugs. When I refer to the bugs, I'm referring to your argument, not my concept of the simulation, such as it is.

And you've lost me, again.

 

[westprog]

What you are describing is not a good simulation but a perfect one. I have to assume that any such device would be less than perfect.

A good simulation would be one that would never be detected in practice. A perfect one could never be detected in principle.

No, I am not. I am saying that this particular explanation is highly improbable.



So would the irrational one. The difference is that new evidence will vindicate the rational thinker.



That's where you're wrong. If the universe is, again, a false vacuum, then its physical laws and constants could very well end with it. In fact, the multiverse scenario explores this. I thought you knew.

The physical laws would remain tied permanently to the universe, however.

And you've lost me, again.

 

[Malerin]

Which isn't relevant.

There's no need to sell doubt. Everyone already has the product. What you need to sell is belief.

Really? Do you see a lot of people here doubting physical matter exists? Do you doubt it exists?

 

[kurious_kathy]

Rational with a big blind spot.

If, OTOH, you are asking if a rational person can rationalize their god beliefs in a rational way.... Not possible.

My faith in God is not blind! Jesus is who he says he is!!

 

[fls]

Really? Do you see a lot of people here doubting physical matter exists? Do you doubt it exists?

I try to doubt it exists, but then I realize that I don't have the wherewithall to come up with stuff like gauge symmetry on my own.

Linda

 

[fls]

My faith in God is not blind! Jesus is who he says he is!!

There there now. Cover your eyes and these mean people will be gone when you wake up.

<pats Kurious Kathy on head>

Linda

 

[Paulhoff]

My faith in God is not blind! Jesus is who he says he is!!

It is very blind.

And Jesus didn't exist, and if he did, he farted.

Paul

 

[yy2bggggs]

Really?

Yes.

Do you see a lot of people here doubting physical matter exists? Do you doubt it exists?

I believe you're equivocating.

Doubt can mean disbelief, but it can also mean lack of certainty (refer to your favorite dictionary). Westprog is showing another possibility--showing that an alternative is possible only goes toward showing lack of certainty. And nobody here seems to be claiming certainty.

This also seems similar to the denial of uncertainty fallacy I pointed out earlier. That we harbor doubts doesn't mean that we can, through really good and lucky guessing, supersede the best we can possibly hope for. I mean, sure, it's possible to supersede the best we can hope for by sheer luck (just as it's possible for me to write the best selling novel of all time by pecking randomly at keys), but it's more likely we'll just fall behind. The best we can realistically hope for is most likely the best we can hope for.

 

[Malerin]

Yes.
I believe you're equivocating.

How so? Are there any atheists here who are skeptical about the existence of a material world made of physical matter? If so, I'd like to meet them.

Doubt can mean disbelief, but it can also mean lack of certainty (refer to your favorite dictionary). Westprog is showing another possibility--showing that an alternative is possible only goes toward showing lack of certainty. And nobody here seems to be claiming certainty.

Au contraire. I would say nearly all the atheists here are certain reality is physically materialistic. How often have I been told to hit my head against the wall because I doubt physical matter exists? Thus I refute you, Berkeley! There is a fanaticism here about materialism and the scientific method that is equivalent to anything I've seen in religion.

This also seems similar to the denial of uncertainty fallacy I pointed out earlier. That we harbor doubts doesn't mean that we can, through really good and lucky guessing, supersede the best we can possibly hope for. I mean, sure, it's possible to supersede the best we can hope for by sheer luck (just as it's possible for me to write the best selling novel of all time by pecking randomly at keys), but it's more likely we'll just fall behind. The best we can realistically hope for is most likely the best we can hope for.

What does this mean? And you didn't answer the question: Do you doubt physical matter exists?

 

[yy2bggggs]

How so?

Exactly how I said.

Au contraire. I would say nearly all the atheists here are certain reality is physically materialistic.

Ask them if they are absolutely certain.

What does this mean?

It means that random speculation is not a reliable way to transcend rational inquiry.

And you didn't answer the question:

You're entirely correct. I didn't answer it. I'm also not in the least interested with whatever irrelevant point you're trying to make about it, nor am I obliged to answer. So deal with it.

If you're insanely curious, you can do research for what my views are. But they have nothing to do with this thread.

 

[L The Detective]

Au contraire. I would say nearly all the atheists here are certain reality is physically materialistic. How often have I been told to hit my head against the wall because I doubt physical matter exists? Thus I refute you, Berkeley! There is a fanaticism here about materialism and the scientific method that is equivalent to anything I've seen in religion.

Is fanaticism really the right word to use? Skeptics aren't alone in thinking physical matter exists, it seems that belief is shared by nearly everyone, because it's reasonable. That doesn't necessarily make people fanatical about it.

But I can understand why you might say they are fanatical about the scientific method. I don't know if that's a fair characterization, personally I would use the word "enthusiastic," but that's just me! I also believe there are good reasons for that.

Even when it comes to religious people, I wouldn't say it's fair to label them all as "fanatical." Some seem to be more reasonable than others.

 

[westprog]

Which isn't relevant.

There's no need to sell doubt. Everyone already has the product. What you need to sell is belief.

In this case, I'm promoting alternate possibilities, which others are ruling out. I don't see that as promoting belief.

 

[Herzblut]

Then you figure out how to live your life.

I figure out that I live my life as if we not lived in a simulation. You want to justify a different stance? How?

 

[westprog]

I figure out that I live my life as if we not lived in a simulation. You want to justify a different stance? How?

That might be a sensible way to live your life if you did live in a simulation.

It might also be worth considering how you want to appear if all your private moments might appear on a DVD compilation sometime.

 

[Belz...]

A good simulation would be one that would never be detected in practice. A perfect one could never be detected in principle.

Well we simply have different definitions of "perfect", but we can go with your definitions, for the sake of argument.

The physical laws would remain tied permanently to the universe, however.

As permanently as a universe can be, of course.

I take it you agree with me, then, that physical laws are required for persistent patterns, such as intelligent life, to emerge ?